I knew that - but she still would be the first to actually become VP. And Mondale was a joke from the beginning so Geraldine really didn't come into play.
-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Election 2008, United States
- Thread starter Great Sage
- Start date
I knew that - but she still would be the first to actually become VP. And Mondale was a joke from the beginning so Geraldine really didn't come into play.
ugh. if either obama or mccain picked hillary or rice, they'd be complete morons.
1). why would mccain pick someone as incompetent as rice?
2). why would obama pick someone who just spent the last 6-odd months trying to discredit him?
1). why would mccain pick someone as incompetent as rice?
2). why would obama pick someone who just spent the last 6-odd months trying to discredit him?
Picking Rice would be a disaster for McCain, yes. Everyone would just see through the "Republicans are not just married white Christian men" ploy, and half the nation probably already despises Rice for her handling of the Iraq War.
Hillary does bring some strong positives (and some strong negatives) to Obama's ticket. You can't really blame her for trying to discredit Obama, since they were running against each other, after all. She can reel in the Reagan Democrats Obama might need to win the Rust Belt and Virginia, and will get a lot of the female vote. She is a divisive candidate, but her presence is the easiest way to unify the Democrats.
Although it might end up like this; just replace the Arabs with Bill and Hillary, Bush with Obama, Texan with Obama, gas with executive power, and "Bush Energy Policy Illustrated" with "Obama-Clinton Presidency Illustrated". Oh, and delete "more". Just a thought...
Hillary does bring some strong positives (and some strong negatives) to Obama's ticket. You can't really blame her for trying to discredit Obama, since they were running against each other, after all. She can reel in the Reagan Democrats Obama might need to win the Rust Belt and Virginia, and will get a lot of the female vote. She is a divisive candidate, but her presence is the easiest way to unify the Democrats.
Although it might end up like this; just replace the Arabs with Bill and Hillary, Bush with Obama, Texan with Obama, gas with executive power, and "Bush Energy Policy Illustrated" with "Obama-Clinton Presidency Illustrated". Oh, and delete "more". Just a thought...
well, that's true, but I just mean personally for Obama. There's no way he doesn't feel some resentment towards hillary for being so extremely selfish. Whether or not it's a smart idea doesn't come into play when I form my opinion on the matter; I just don't think Obama would do it. And from the sounds of it, he won't.
George Bush worked his heart out trying to win Pennsylvania in 2004 and failed - I don't see how McCain does it. If Pennsylvania is in play, Obama is already screwed, plain and simple.
The swing states to look out for are Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and the three N's - Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Michigan depends upon Obama making nice with the voters here (I think he made a big mistake at the Rules and Bylaws Committee - should have just accepted 73-55 Hillary), but I suspect he will win the state anyway. Iowa and Colorado are leaning Democratic, but McCain will compete in them, so I wouldn't immediately assume Obama winning them (although Colorado will bounce with the convention).
Truth be told, barring another Wright-like fiasco, the race is likely to change fairly modestly except for a few events.
1) Obama will get a modest bump now that Clinton is out (McCain got a bump when Romney dropped out and the race was largely over). The size of this bump could determine the tenor of the race for the next few months.
2) VP selections. McCain is likely to pick a "safe" conservative, which will give him a boost with the base, but may raise concerns among left-leaning independents who still see him as a maverick (yes, these still exist). Obama's VP choice will be crucial. If he picks Hillary he's likely to get another boost; but it may be short-lived once Republicans seize on it. John Edwards is consistently a strong choice according to SurveyUSA, but he claims he doesn't want the job. Anyone else (Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, etc.) will probably have fairly modest effects early on but may help his scores over time.
3) The conventions. Now that Hillary is out, the stage is set for a good Democratic convention, which will be absolutely critical. The Republican convention will be tricky - George H. W. Bush hurt himself by letting Pat Buchanan speak at the '92 convention, which cost him support among moderates. The convention epitomizes McCain's tightrope act, and he will have to manage it perfectly. Odds are he doesn't.
4) The debates. This is where McCain can make a comeback if the conventions come out as an advantage for Obama. Obama has proven to be a fairly weak debater, so he will need to prepare strenuously for these. He will probably make a mistake or two, but if he can survive the first debate, this won't hurt him too badly.
The swing states to look out for are Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, and the three N's - Nevada, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. Michigan depends upon Obama making nice with the voters here (I think he made a big mistake at the Rules and Bylaws Committee - should have just accepted 73-55 Hillary), but I suspect he will win the state anyway. Iowa and Colorado are leaning Democratic, but McCain will compete in them, so I wouldn't immediately assume Obama winning them (although Colorado will bounce with the convention).
Truth be told, barring another Wright-like fiasco, the race is likely to change fairly modestly except for a few events.
1) Obama will get a modest bump now that Clinton is out (McCain got a bump when Romney dropped out and the race was largely over). The size of this bump could determine the tenor of the race for the next few months.
2) VP selections. McCain is likely to pick a "safe" conservative, which will give him a boost with the base, but may raise concerns among left-leaning independents who still see him as a maverick (yes, these still exist). Obama's VP choice will be crucial. If he picks Hillary he's likely to get another boost; but it may be short-lived once Republicans seize on it. John Edwards is consistently a strong choice according to SurveyUSA, but he claims he doesn't want the job. Anyone else (Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, etc.) will probably have fairly modest effects early on but may help his scores over time.
3) The conventions. Now that Hillary is out, the stage is set for a good Democratic convention, which will be absolutely critical. The Republican convention will be tricky - George H. W. Bush hurt himself by letting Pat Buchanan speak at the '92 convention, which cost him support among moderates. The convention epitomizes McCain's tightrope act, and he will have to manage it perfectly. Odds are he doesn't.
4) The debates. This is where McCain can make a comeback if the conventions come out as an advantage for Obama. Obama has proven to be a fairly weak debater, so he will need to prepare strenuously for these. He will probably make a mistake or two, but if he can survive the first debate, this won't hurt him too badly.
Honestly I liked old McCain a whole lot more than his new "lets suck every dick in sight" program that's only there to get him elected. But I seriously hope you're not pretending that Obama isn't pulling the same shitball tactics. Ask Obama about his stance on gun control in Pennsylvania and in Illinois, they're completely different. He voted for a handgun ban yet he's pro second amendment? Don't go defend him with the whole rifle/militia arguments either, because frankly those arguments are 100% bullshit.
I still say that Obama was a choice that the Democrats will regret. If they would have run a more moderate candidate they would have stomped the Republican's nuts into the ground in a second, if said moderate had a peaceful and prosperous 8 years the democrats would have some smooth sailing for a long time.
You know who I wish ran though? Colin Powell. He can utter a witty quip and strangle a bear to death at the same time I heard.
yeah, i wonder where all the "he has no experience" people were when george w. bush was running. he literally had no experience, but no one seemed to care.
also, in the hillary/obama light, i find it amusing that people neglect to realize that obama has had elected office longer than hillary has, thus giving him "more experience".
let's not forget that no presidential candidate has any "experience" at being President, since they're just candidates, after all.
also, in the hillary/obama light, i find it amusing that people neglect to realize that obama has had elected office longer than hillary has, thus giving him "more experience".
let's not forget that no presidential candidate has any "experience" at being President, since they're just candidates, after all.
Hopefully McCain won't croak before November.
As long as he doesn't choose Huckabee, I'll vote for him.
Even if Obama chooses Clinton as VP - he's a little sneak, 2 face-butthead.
"I Black, people!!!!!!11!!!"
Wrong - you're mother is white.
My grandmother acted like a typical white woman when I was walking with her - like she didn't even want to associate with me.
Right. Did you know that he's Dick Cheney's 8th cousin? I swear.
"I want to bring everyone together - to unify this country."
Right - then why do you associate with two people considered the most controversial of our time - not just Jeremiah Wright, but the caucasion dude that criticized Clinton.
"I am not a terrorist"
Right, neither is Obama - woops, I mean Osama. He's just defending muslim beliefs from the tyrannous Allah-haters. Everything is perception, right?
In fact, you're not even a muslim at all - you just sometimes go parading around in typical Arab dresswear meant for ceremonial and religious purposes, right?
"I have never been related to a terrorist"
You're not related to your father? Sure, he wasn't killing people for no reason - just defense of Islam in his country, and sometimes stepped out of bounds and killed innocent people.
We need someone a bit more experienced than Barack Hussein Obama. Someone like John McCain!
Oh, and to the guy above me -
McCain got a bump in the primaries - not the main race. Just that primaries are over for democrats. I saw so many people on the news here - "I'm going for McCain, even if Obama chooses Hillary as his running mate", and I'm a New Yorker.
The Jews don't like Obama - they're going McCain. Unless he chooses Giullianni or Huckabee - then they will just arrange for an assasination of Obama or one of the VPs.
Pennsylvanians won't go for Obama, as he can't communicate with Working-Class Whites. Same for WV, Ky, Oh, Mi, Wi, possibly In, Ia, Mn, etc.
Obama might win the Northeast, and the carolinas with Edwards, but he'll have a heck of a time with that.
California will go to Obama, only because Obama hasn't introduced anti immigration laws. Then again, Orientals and Hispanics really don't like him.
Obama is more likely for North/South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and possibly Oklahoma/Montana/Louisianna.
Btw, John McCain has a couple good choices for VP:
Romney - religious, but not too right-wing. Might win over anti-abortionists.
Joe Lieberman - The guy from Connecticut that left the democratic party after he was not nominated for reelection after Iraq endorsement. Netral man - very Purple in his beliefs.
Giullianni - another North-Eastern person. America's mayor, remember?
Charlie Crist - Florida is really important. Texas is guaranteed, but the other top 5 states are not guaranteed in the slightest. California, New York, Pa are discussed above, but Florida is really important. A Vice President is excellent for clinching a state's votes (though not a guarantee - Edwards did not get North Carolina in 2004).
Do not go say that I am anti-Black or anti-Muslim, I'm just anti Obama. Charlie Rengal would make a better president. Condoleeza Rice would make a better president. Name me a muslim that is not bent on destroying the US and has no ties to terrorism, and I'd probably vote for them.
Let me put it into perspective - I am one of only 3 caucasions in my major - the rest are african american, hispanic, oriental, and middle-eastern. Most said Clinton or McCain - "Give us one of those, or give us death". And by most, I don't mean 51% - I mean 85%.
As long as he doesn't choose Huckabee, I'll vote for him.
Even if Obama chooses Clinton as VP - he's a little sneak, 2 face-butthead.
"I Black, people!!!!!!11!!!"
Wrong - you're mother is white.
My grandmother acted like a typical white woman when I was walking with her - like she didn't even want to associate with me.
Right. Did you know that he's Dick Cheney's 8th cousin? I swear.
"I want to bring everyone together - to unify this country."
Right - then why do you associate with two people considered the most controversial of our time - not just Jeremiah Wright, but the caucasion dude that criticized Clinton.
"I am not a terrorist"
Right, neither is Obama - woops, I mean Osama. He's just defending muslim beliefs from the tyrannous Allah-haters. Everything is perception, right?
In fact, you're not even a muslim at all - you just sometimes go parading around in typical Arab dresswear meant for ceremonial and religious purposes, right?
"I have never been related to a terrorist"
You're not related to your father? Sure, he wasn't killing people for no reason - just defense of Islam in his country, and sometimes stepped out of bounds and killed innocent people.
We need someone a bit more experienced than Barack Hussein Obama. Someone like John McCain!
Oh, and to the guy above me -
McCain got a bump in the primaries - not the main race. Just that primaries are over for democrats. I saw so many people on the news here - "I'm going for McCain, even if Obama chooses Hillary as his running mate", and I'm a New Yorker.
The Jews don't like Obama - they're going McCain. Unless he chooses Giullianni or Huckabee - then they will just arrange for an assasination of Obama or one of the VPs.
Pennsylvanians won't go for Obama, as he can't communicate with Working-Class Whites. Same for WV, Ky, Oh, Mi, Wi, possibly In, Ia, Mn, etc.
Obama might win the Northeast, and the carolinas with Edwards, but he'll have a heck of a time with that.
California will go to Obama, only because Obama hasn't introduced anti immigration laws. Then again, Orientals and Hispanics really don't like him.
Obama is more likely for North/South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and possibly Oklahoma/Montana/Louisianna.
Btw, John McCain has a couple good choices for VP:
Romney - religious, but not too right-wing. Might win over anti-abortionists.
Joe Lieberman - The guy from Connecticut that left the democratic party after he was not nominated for reelection after Iraq endorsement. Netral man - very Purple in his beliefs.
Giullianni - another North-Eastern person. America's mayor, remember?
Charlie Crist - Florida is really important. Texas is guaranteed, but the other top 5 states are not guaranteed in the slightest. California, New York, Pa are discussed above, but Florida is really important. A Vice President is excellent for clinching a state's votes (though not a guarantee - Edwards did not get North Carolina in 2004).
Do not go say that I am anti-Black or anti-Muslim, I'm just anti Obama. Charlie Rengal would make a better president. Condoleeza Rice would make a better president. Name me a muslim that is not bent on destroying the US and has no ties to terrorism, and I'd probably vote for them.
Let me put it into perspective - I am one of only 3 caucasions in my major - the rest are african american, hispanic, oriental, and middle-eastern. Most said Clinton or McCain - "Give us one of those, or give us death". And by most, I don't mean 51% - I mean 85%.
"Vial of anthrax". He loses.
To be fair, Bill Clinton was scared shitless at the prospect of him running in 1992 or 1996. He's a quality moderate, just tarnished forever by Bush.
I agree with you that a more moderate candidate would have been helpful - unfortunately, quite a few moderates showed up for the game (Bill Richardson comes to mind) and were simply shut down. In a race among Democrats, Hillary or Obama alone would be difficult to beat; the two of them together simply crowded out everyone else, including Edwards.
This is kind of why I dislike the primary process; it makes it very difficult for a moderate candidate to come through. Conservatives make up the vast majority of the Republican electorate, and Obama has proven that liberals win the day in the Democratic primaries. The only way a moderate wins is if the "base" voters are diluted among multiple candidates (as they were in the 1976 Democratic primaries, the 1992 Democratic primaries, and the 2008 Republican primaries). This may be related to the fact that we have had only three "strong" candidates in the last 40 years - Nixon (a former VP anyway), Reagan, and Clinton (see above).
well why not. barack obama's political views are more or less ... correct.
i love mccain's new campaign ad, with obama's 'resume' being set up to look like a police report and listing "street organizer" as a past job.
May be evil to you, but I agree with most of those things. I want abortion banned as I am pro-life, I want to continue the Iraq war, I am against gay marriage and homosexual rights, and think abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. I am for the death penalty.
I live in Texas and this state is not going blue. I don't understand why ANYONE thinks this. Look at the electoral map by county in 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Apart from Austin and the Rio Grande Valley the whole state went red. There are not enough blacks and hispanics in Texas to tip the vote. Obama won't come within 10 percentage points on election night. For every Austin and Dallas you have who vote mainly democrat you have cities like Fort Worth, Amarillo, San Antonio, Lubbock, Abilene, and San Angelo that go republican.
Correct in YOUR opinion. Not to mine. I am against EVERYTHING he stands for. The only thing me and Obama agree on politically is that gay marriage should not be legalized.
If this isn't trolling I don't know what is. So everyone who votes for Obama is smart and everyone who votes for McCain is dumb?
I should point out that A) George Bush is a favorite son and B) got a stronger percentage of the Hispanic vote than Republicans have gotten in the past or will get in the near future. While I expect Texas to vote for McCain by a comfortable margin (say 10%), demographic trends are likely to put it in play in the future, given the right Democrat. It could even be fairly soon if Noriega defeats Cornyn.
Whether or not Texas goes democrat in the future is based off of how large the urban areas grow vs. the rural areas.
Top 10 cities in Texas by population and political affiliation:
1. Houston - Democrat
2. San Antonio - Moderate
3. Dallas - Democrat
4. Austin - Heavy Democrat
5. Fort Worth - Republican
6. El Paso - Democrat
7. Arlington - Heavy Republican
8. Corpus Christi - Republican
9. Plano - Heavy Republican
10. Garland - Heavy Republican
Apart from Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, and the Rio Grande Valley, Texas is a republican state. The state goes democrat if the populations of the said cities listed outweigh the populations in the rest of the state.
Uh to get back to the race rather than all the personal attacks based on ideological differences:
The swing states are basically:
Lean Obama: Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa
Lean McCain: Virginia, Missouri, Nevada
Relatively Even: Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio
I'll just review the more controversial ones:
Iowa is very Obama. McCain is against their interests when it comes to farming and Iowa launched Obama's campaign. I think this is the only state that's guaranteed (as far as that can be in politics) to turn blue.
Michigan would ordinarily be Obama, I would think, but the Dems screwed the pooch with this so he needs to be careful.
Virginia is the red state that Obama is really looking to turn blue, but while the demographics in the northern suburubs and cities are very blue, McCain looks really good in the military bases that dot the state, as well as rural western Virginia (Appalachia, Obama's real problem), where Obama was trounced by Clinton in the primaries.
And...
The swing states are basically:
Lean Obama: Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa
Lean McCain: Virginia, Missouri, Nevada
Relatively Even: Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio
I'll just review the more controversial ones:
Iowa is very Obama. McCain is against their interests when it comes to farming and Iowa launched Obama's campaign. I think this is the only state that's guaranteed (as far as that can be in politics) to turn blue.
Michigan would ordinarily be Obama, I would think, but the Dems screwed the pooch with this so he needs to be careful.
Virginia is the red state that Obama is really looking to turn blue, but while the demographics in the northern suburubs and cities are very blue, McCain looks really good in the military bases that dot the state, as well as rural western Virginia (Appalachia, Obama's real problem), where Obama was trounced by Clinton in the primaries.
And...
Hahaha oh man. "I AM AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS." Why are you against gay marriage, there is literally no logical reason I have ever heard in my life and I have heard all the arguments. I would like to hear your rationale("THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE" doesnt exist btw). If it is for religion then that would mean you favor America being a theocracy ... you don't want to be like those "muslims" do you ..........
Also how are you in favor the death penalty? It is not a proven deterrent. The criminal justice system exists for two reasons: to protect the public, and to act as a deterrent for future crimes. It is proven that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent and it does not serve to protect the public anymore than life in prison does ... it certainly does not serve to protect the public as much as a comprehensive prison reform geared towards rehabilitation would.
I fear you have been beguiled by the bourgeois right wing who like to take advantage of your religion to make you easy to control by making you have simplified political opinions and respond very well to right wing talking points! It's alright, you are as much a victim as anyone else.
Also this is a republican campaign image:
how can you associate with a party that uses such grotesque race baiting tactics?
this coming from the man who's username is god, lol.
Anyways, my votes for Obama. For reasons already covered in this thread, my particular persuasion is to vote for the dems, and he's the best candidate we've had in a long while.
Anyways, my votes for Obama. For reasons already covered in this thread, my particular persuasion is to vote for the dems, and he's the best candidate we've had in a long while.
How was Obama better than Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson and HRClinton?
The Senators among them all have more senatorial experience than Obama (he's been in all of two years of a 6 year term before running for Prez), none of them are as hopelessly naive, Richardson specifically has executive experience and is Hispanic, and I'm pretty sure UFO Kucinich was a House Rep for a while and Mayor of Cleveland. Richardson was a congressman for 14 years, then US Ambassador, then Energy Secretary, before he became Governor.
I disagree with Biden and Dodd (Edwards is a tool, Hillary is a megalomaniacal shrew, Gravel and Kucinich are nuts) as much as I do Obama, but I wouldn't mourn my country's death if they were elected whereas green-eared Obama is sure to screw us and half the world over with his incompetence and naivety. I'd never heard of Richardson before but my worries with him vs. McAmnesty are pretty much of equal kind.
Honestly, Obama is a featherweight candidate compared to most of his primary competition. Unless your thought process was "He's a shiny new black guy spouting about Hope and Change and New Politics! He can't lose!" I fail to see how he was the best Democratic candidate for this race alone, never mind if you went back to 2004 and 2000 races.
yeah this experience talking point is ridiculous. james buchanan had a lot more experience than abraham lincoln, howd that work out ...
Obama is a better candidate because he is inspirational. Yes people that is actually important, someone who can inspire people can get things done, someone who represents hope and who resonates with ambitious, young idealists can create real changes in our society, and our society sorely needs changing. And yes to be honest him being black is a good reason to support him. If he was a shitty candidate him being black wouldn't make up for it, no, but he is not a shitty candidate, so his color can push him over the edge. A black President will do great things for the furthering of race relations in our country. We live in a country that is still very much racist and has its fair share of institutionalized racism. Born-rich white conservatives don't realize this, but it is very very true.
I'd really like to know from any conservative how they can stand behind a party that produced the image I posted.
Obama is a better candidate because he is inspirational. Yes people that is actually important, someone who can inspire people can get things done, someone who represents hope and who resonates with ambitious, young idealists can create real changes in our society, and our society sorely needs changing. And yes to be honest him being black is a good reason to support him. If he was a shitty candidate him being black wouldn't make up for it, no, but he is not a shitty candidate, so his color can push him over the edge. A black President will do great things for the furthering of race relations in our country. We live in a country that is still very much racist and has its fair share of institutionalized racism. Born-rich white conservatives don't realize this, but it is very very true.
I'd really like to know from any conservative how they can stand behind a party that produced the image I posted.
All you posted was an image froma politico story. It could have been from any random blogger anywhere.
How can you associate with a party whose operatives created this image for the Lieberman Lamont race:
Crazy socialist nutroots bloggers aren't above attacking Democrats with racially charged images. Democrat peabrains at colleges throw oreo cookies and use "sellout" and "Uncle Tom" smears at black conservatives like Michael Steele, they repeatedly make asian whore and anchor baby cracks about Michelle Malkin.
The Democratic party even founded the KKK and have opposed every single civil rights legislation proposed. The Republican Party itself was created by abolistionists in order to oppose the rampant racism emblematic of the Democratic Party.
The entire Democratic primary was all about who was racist or sexist for not supporting either Obama or Hillary. Please, how can Democrats associate with the official party of identity politics based on how they act on a daily basis.
How do you account for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act
By Party/Party and Region said:
Note that this is the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This is the most mild difference I could possibly point out between the two parties.
We could go all the way back to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which had to overturn Andrew Johnsons veto. Fun fact about Andrew Johnson: He passed all the Black Codes that ever came onto his desk. If I can fault Lincoln for anything it was for appeasing southern Democrats after the Civil War by dropping his Republican VP in 1965 and making a Southern Democrat his VP.
Republicans should reconsider their party based on a single ad from an unknown source using the word "street," but Democrats shouldn't flinch at the fact their party has been racist for 200 years? I think not.
I agree with Deck Knight that this holier than thou shit is ridiculous. Democrats ran the South before the Civil War, and after Reconstruction until 1952 (even in 1948, no Republican won the south, it was Truman + Thurmond, who ran as a Dixiecrat), and there were still many powerful southern Democrats who were anti-Civil Rights legislation, as Deck Knight correctly pointed out.
But, Republicans also have had their issues. Nixon had his Southern Strategy (even then, many blacks voted for Nixon), Reagan was unpopular with blacks, as were both Bushes. W's management of Katrina pushed blacks extremely far away from Republicans.
Also, Republicans have no black leadership. Back in Reconstruction, all black politicians in office were Republicans. Even in '68, Republicans had a black senator. But now, Republicans have no black Congressional or Gubernatorial members. By contrast, Democrats have 2 black governors, around 40 House members and a black senator. Republicans have had no major outreach for black voters in a long time (they've had minor outreaches, but most of those candidates lose, which obviously doesn't help its image).
Democrats have made an attempt to rewrite their history (in a positive way), but Republicans have alienated black voters on many occasions, going back on their own history of courting black voters, to go after the southern vote that Democrats gave away (but seem to be regaining).
It's not like Republicans can't win black voters on the issues. The black middle class is conservative fiscally and at worst moderate socially, while working-class blacks are liberal fiscally and conservative socially. I think Republicans need to reconsider their strategies; it can't be good that black Republicans are considered Uncle Toms by the black community at-large.
But, Republicans also have had their issues. Nixon had his Southern Strategy (even then, many blacks voted for Nixon), Reagan was unpopular with blacks, as were both Bushes. W's management of Katrina pushed blacks extremely far away from Republicans.
Also, Republicans have no black leadership. Back in Reconstruction, all black politicians in office were Republicans. Even in '68, Republicans had a black senator. But now, Republicans have no black Congressional or Gubernatorial members. By contrast, Democrats have 2 black governors, around 40 House members and a black senator. Republicans have had no major outreach for black voters in a long time (they've had minor outreaches, but most of those candidates lose, which obviously doesn't help its image).
Democrats have made an attempt to rewrite their history (in a positive way), but Republicans have alienated black voters on many occasions, going back on their own history of courting black voters, to go after the southern vote that Democrats gave away (but seem to be regaining).
It's not like Republicans can't win black voters on the issues. The black middle class is conservative fiscally and at worst moderate socially, while working-class blacks are liberal fiscally and conservative socially. I think Republicans need to reconsider their strategies; it can't be good that black Republicans are considered Uncle Toms by the black community at-large.
Deck Knight, remember that the political parties were far different before the Civil Right Act. There were many very conservative southern Democrats that made the party considerably less liberal than it is now. After the Civil Rights Act, many southern Democrats, such as Strom Thurmond, switched parties. It is completely misleading and preposterous to quote the Democrats' vote in 1964 as evidence of their being racist or sexist when the extremely conservative wing of the party has since been ejected.
All you posted was an image froma politico story. It could have been from any random blogger anywhere.
How can you associate with a party whose operatives created this image for the Lieberman Lamont race:
Crazy socialist nutroots bloggers aren't above attacking Democrats with racially charged images. Democrat peabrains at colleges throw oreo cookies and use "sellout" and "Uncle Tom" smears at black conservatives like Michael Steele, they repeatedly make asian whore and anchor baby cracks about Michelle Malkin.
The Democratic party even founded the KKK and have opposed every single civil rights legislation proposed. The Republican Party itself was created by abolistionists in order to oppose the rampant racism emblematic of the Democratic Party.
The entire Democratic primary was all about who was racist or sexist for not supporting either Obama or Hillary. Please, how can Democrats associate with the official party of identity politics based on how they act on a daily basis.
Well I do not associate with the Democratic Party, but Ness obviously takes any right-wing talking point as gospel, so I am pretty sure he associates with the Republican Party. American politics are full of idiots and I would not stand behind any collective of them, but at least the idiots on the left support universal healthcare etc.
And yes the Democratic Party has racist roots obviously. But right now it is the Democrats who have a black candidate and the Republicans and basically most conservatives are race baiting, that's how they want to win this election. Right now it is not the left whose main political agenda is to use race, religion and all kinds of other stuff to fool people into thinking they are on their side(i would have voted for obama based on his 'bitter' comments alone. absolutely spot on), it is mostly the right.
Hahaha oh man. "I AM AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS." Why are you against gay marriage, there is literally no logical reason I have ever heard in my life and I have heard all the arguments. I would like to hear your rationale("THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE" doesnt exist btw). If it is for religion then that would mean you favor America being a theocracy ... you don't want to be like those "muslims" do you ..........
Also how are you in favor the death penalty? It is not a proven deterrent. The criminal justice system exists for two reasons: to protect the public, and to act as a deterrent for future crimes. It is proven that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent and it does not serve to protect the public anymore than life in prison does ... it certainly does not serve to protect the public as much as a comprehensive prison reform geared towards rehabilitation would.
I fear you have been beguiled by the bourgeois right wing who like to take advantage of your religion to make you easy to control by making you have simplified political opinions and respond very well to right wing talking points! It's alright, you are as much a victim as anyone else.
Also this is a republican campaign image:
how can you associate with a party that uses such grotesque race baiting tactics?
I am against homosexual rights because of my religion. If you have a problem with that than thats too bad. But marriage is an institution, between a man and a woman. Plain and simple.
If someone wants to kill someone, they aren't going to consider the consequences. There is nothing that can deter the will of someone who wants to kill. They know their life is over if they are caught death penalty or not. I am for the death penalty from a justice standpoint. It even says in the constitution "Establish Justice" and if someone wants to kill a lot of people or murder a pregnant woman, that person deserves justice at the highest degree which means death.
At least I am not influenced by the left wing media like every other college aged person alive. My school is located in the center of one of the strongest republican strongholds in the country(Fort Worth) yet the entire campus is full of liberals who wear Che Guevarra shirts, 911-truth shirts, moveon.org bumper stickers, etc.. But I guess when you are living off of your parents money its easy to be a liberal.